Does liking TS Elliot make you antisemitic?

I hate it when that happens. One of my favorite films was the Big Easy - thought Ellen Barkin was wonderfully funny in it and became a big fan. That is, until I saw her interviewed on the Actor's Studio - Ughh. A self congratulatory, bitchy woman. To top it all she claimed to have saved Al Pacino's career (how dare she!) She told a story of how, when she was in a strop for some reason on the set of Sea of Love, Al Pacino came to her trailer and pleaded with her to make the film work because he was so desperate for it to kick start his career again, and then she went on and on about how nervous he was with the sex scenes. Cow. Thing is, The Big Easy has never been the same again. (p.s. in Al's defense, he was probably just trying to get the stroppy cow out of her trailer... Desperate my arse.)

I've always found it hard that Spike Milligan, one of my all-time heroes dissaproved vehemently of mixed-race marriages. I am the product of one such union!

I'm a bit worried about Chris Langham, I rather liked him. I suppose (assuming the worst) it doesn't make anything he did less funny, but it wouldn't feel the same hearing it again. Any Gary Glitter fans care to contribute? Didn't Mohammed Ali dissaprove of mixed-race marriages, or have I got that horribly wrong.

"Aesthetics have nothing to do with morality." well said leftboy. This was the point I made to a certain person. As an Eminem fan (not going down the road of arguing this point - we'll agree to disagree!) - I think it sad, even when in jest M Mathers uses homophobic lyrics and lyrics that glorify violence against women. But it does not change the fact that Eminem is the greatist lyrical poet of the rap genre who has ever lived (in my humble opinion)! And we need to look more closely at his work. Take "Kim" - yes, killing your wife is not nice. But what comes through to me in the song is not a violent thug killing for kicks but a man who is desperately in love, is mentally shattered by his wife's infidelity and is unable to control the feelings and mental anguish which result. The absolute power of the song is the overwhelming sense of desperation which drives him to the edge. But to go to a concert is, as I've been told, a witness to support of some of Mr Mathers' less savoury comments. I don't think it would look convincing if I said. "I'm a 'Christian' or a "believer in human rights"(or whatever) and I dissaprove of Eminem's homophobic intolerence/ derogatory comments made against women - BUT I'm only going to the concert because of the artistic value."

I agree with Pesky. What most people never seem to realise is that we are ALL deeply flawed. We tend to disregard our own and try to hide them from others as much as possible. We'd also be dismayed if we were judged on those flaws.

I'm not sure I remember which one so I won't risk guessing, but there was a relatively famous physicist who turned out to be a kiddy fiddler. Nobody cares a jot, the equations he developed are freely used. In art however, personality does intrude and is relevant and it is hard to divorce a book from it's author. You should accept authors as being flawed just as you should accept anybody as being flawed, But there are limits, and an anybody may have done too much for me to stomach (the finest meal with Adolf Hitler would be ruined, even if Adolf didn't mention the Jews), and when your read a book, to an extent, you spend time with the author, and the same applies. On the other hand one of my pet peeves is people judging historic figures by the morality of today, by anybody's definition Abe Lincoln was a racist. The casual racism of the Goon show made it much easier for me to come to terms with the casual racism of my grandparents, they were not bad people, just a different generation. So in Spike Milligan's case, it actually had a positive effect.

There was a great article - I think it was in the IoS - about why certain public figures (Kate Moss, Pete Townsend,) get forgiven for their indiscretions while others (John Leslie, Gary Glitter,) are forever damned to be disapproved of. It basically argued that the public are a *good* judge. They forgive people who have a good record - who are good eggs - but not people who are prats. They sometimes get it wrong (the author cited 'Mad' Frankie Fraser as someone who shouldn't be forgiven and embraced,) but they're generally quite good at giving decent celebrities another chance after disgrace. I'd say someone's character makes a big difference for me, in most cases. Part of what I love about Kurt Vonnegut and Leonard Cohen, for instance, is how uncommonly sensible they are. Perhaps not to their own health, but in terms of their treatment of other people, and the opinions they voice. On the other hand, I see no problem with enjoying Eliot (when he *is* enjoyable,) while maintaining the view that he was often wrong. In fact, I think more inexcusable than ignorance is when someone uses their intelligence to ill effect, and I dislike Eliot mostly for his claims that good poetry is necessarily ahead of its time, and interests only the very few, while the general populous remain with what is famililar to them. I dislike this because it *is* a cogent argument, and yet it seems to give license to cliques of pretentious individuals who all love each other's work to believe that they are ahead of everyone else, and don't need to pay attention to more popular arts. I don't mind self-belief, but we have enough snobbish poets. Bob Dylan's a good example of someone whose music I like a lot, but whose personality I try not to think about. He might be a good bloke, but he always comes across as vain and cold.

For me, anyway. I love Tina Turner, for instance, and then I read an interview with Chris Isaak -- who'd been touring with her -- where he said Ms. Turner never spoke to him or his band. Very disappointing. I myself am EXCEPTIONALLY talented but I would never treat others that way. Barf. Also I've been a fan of Annie Lennox since I was a kid. I grew out of her interchangeable k-k-k-chameleon ways in my early twenties (thank god), but recently I've heard that she requires releases for photographers. In fact I saw a "People" magazine where Ms. Lennox is mentioned heavily but there are no photographs. Love that. And, oh, Mr. Brown: Good poetry IS ahead of its time, and only enjoyable to a select few. How else to feel special? But, seriously, I think it should be that way. A poet may be the only catalyst to drive thought. If he/she is proletariat, then where does that leave us? Picture it this way: A cafe full of smug people sipping Chai tea and nodding in agreement with "their" poet. Barf again. Better that a poet speak profanely and clear the room of too much Ralph Lauren and "Sex and the City" riff raff, I say. And the lovely thing about such poets is that you can leave at any time, usually under the premise of getting another Latte.

Well. I've seen Steve Coogan punch a stagehand. Dave Gorman threaten to cancel a show because there were no towels backstage. The Waterboys fume because we gave them Penne instead of Fusili. Rikki lee Jones go on stage an hour late at the Bloomsbury because she was not happy with the quality of the drugs that she was supplied with. I still love these acts. We want them to be a bit self seeking and weird surley. Ralph

Duffy is pretty good, but it's hard to like something or someone so many people adore unless you find your own angle on it. I've read a few bits from 'Rapture' in bookshops and wothaveyou, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Probably OK, possibly good, certainly not the pile of crap I was led to believe it was. But the critical reaction from Ruth Padel, David Constantine et al smacks of the cliquey elite celebrating 'their poet' for doing something that they'd scoff at if anyone else attempted it. It's like when Harold Pinter wrote those shite anti-war poems and they got printed in two foot high letters in the Guardian.

Again, I haven't read much of 'The World's Wife', but it's one of the very few modern poetry collections I've ever seen which immediately strikes you as clever and interesting, and thus one of the few which doesn't rely on the whoops of dusty critics to sell. The premise of 'Rapture' is very disappointing in comparison, but then, I suppose she didn't want to get into a rut of relying on catchy concepts.